Leave it to a sheltered European who has never seen violence firsthand to say that someone would who has experienced violence firsthand would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later. That's the single biggest reason people arm themselves in the first place.

Uh...I kind of think that using the "sheltered European" card on Blahb is like using the "kid" card on someone who's about your own age. And as much as I believe Blahb to be just too extreme in his views on many things, this one included, from what I've gathered while I've been around, he's anything but a "sheltered European".

xDarc:Leave it to a sheltered European who has never seen violence firsthand to say that someone would who has experienced violence firsthand would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

..hang on.

If what you say is true, and if as Europeans we all live in some idyllic Utopian society where we're never exposed to violence, then maybe, seeing as our society is so vastly superior to yours, you should shut up and listen to how we deal with crime, because clearly it works.

The reality, however, is that it's not true. There is violence everywhere and given what little I know about Blablahb, he's certainly seen a fair share of it. What he's advocating (albeit in his own dogmatic and extreme way) is actually a fairly pragmatic attitude to self-defense, and one which genuinely works in most of the world.

evilthecat:There is violence everywhere and given what little I know about Blablahb, he's certainly seen a fair share of it. What he's advocating (albeit in his own dogmatic and extreme way) is actually a fairly pragmatic attitude to self-defense, and one which genuinely works in most of the world.

With respect I don't think it's pragmatic attitude to suggest that those on the defense of this greatly intense, extreme scenario are likened to arguments for wild west-style rules of anything goes, get-yer-guns boys lawlessness.

And don't misplace dogma for petulance. I've seen several completely warped analogies of vigilantism, unjust actions and downright psychotic acts in the name of "self-defense". This is a trend that happens on other topics of controversy as well.

Furthermore I've provided a case for temporary insanity that's gone largely ignored in favor of attacking this alleged "death zone" around someone's property. Let's just say there is a lot of wild supposition to go around.

AgedGrunt:I'm not sure what the definition of murder is in Canada, but generally I've understood it to require planning or premeditation.

Almost all legal systems that can be traced back to English law (including the US and Canada) use the following definition for Murder: an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.

"Malice aforethought" does not require premeditation (although some jurisdictions distinguish between premeditated and "regular" murder, see "1st and 2nd degree murder") and, in some cases, has been found with only seconds to make the decision to kill.

The criminal case was a very tough sell given the circumstances. I don't believe he was in the right frame of mind to make the moral decision we can freely consider at a keyboard.

True, but, ironically, a jury isn't exactly going to give him the advantage he has here.

AgedGrunt:And what happened doesn't make the man mentally ill. This is a very dangerous trend to start. Psychologists in the U.S. are going to be under pressure to report anyone suspicious, violating their integrity. Joe Biden even called-out a man who said "this is my baby" (a rifle) and told a crowd he wasn't sure he was fit to have that weapon. Let's leave it up to clinical experts and courts, shall we?

I'm not sure this is responding to me, but you've hit on a point that explains why people are held responsible for their actions in this situation rather than allowing for a lesser charge on a reduced capacity defense. While I'm not sure exactly how the test works in this jurisdiction, self-defense is usually based on a "reasonable person's" perspective of necessity and reasonable force (or, if conforming to the statute, not excessive force). If there is no objection to the facts established by the prosecution in this case and the facts establish the elements for murder, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove he acted reasonably in the situation.

AgedGrunt:Generally society should err on the side of victims. I would wager that if a woman was attacked by five armed men, with intent of sexual assault or worse, and she turned it around, pursued outside of her home and killed, yet was then brought up on murder charges, the Internet would set the case on fire.

The problem is that, absent compelling and corroborated evidence that it was a perfect self defense (i.e. self defense that completely conforms with the statute giving no basis for the fact finding of a trial), they need to charge her and send it to trial as a matter of jurisprudence. If self defense can be established at trial, then she will be found not guilty, but if she went beyond necessary and reasonable force, then she must be found guilty of murder.

And I would be careful about the "erring on the side of the victims" in this situation, especially since the victims in this situation are the dead ones, not the one with the rifle and illegal magazine.

What's fucked up is worrying about the rights of criminals in the middle of a home invasion.

If a criminal is fleeing then the home invasion is over and the victim can safely wait for the police to arrive. So yes, what's fucked up is someone literally saying that a fleeing criminal who is no longer a threat should run faster if they don't want to be killed.

Such casual disregard for human life after the actual danger has passed is frightening.

Such casual disregard for human life after the actual danger has passed is frightening.

Well if you ask me, I'm of the opinion many of the "tough guys" aren't nearly as tough and/or hardened as they want to come across, and this all is more along the lines of an adolescent power fantasy of being a gun-toting badass while a buxom, scantily clad wench clings to your thigh.

I mean, what I just wrote comes across as rather bigoted and pretentious, no? But in the interest of my own mental health I simply have to rationalize it, as I cannot believe that anyone could rationally argue something like that...

Such casual disregard for human life after the actual danger has passed is frightening.

That's the thing. Who's to say when danger has passed? What if the person goes to their car and comes back with a gun, kills you and rapes 89 year old grandmother? If I were Blahblah I'd insult you for supporting grandma rape, because, hey- in my head I'm right and it could happen.

But the law needs a real standard, a real limit for when you must disengage and stop trying to kill your attacker.

It should be your property line. It's logical. If someone simply turns around, how do you know they will not turn right back around and shoot you in the face? You really don't know. And we don't want a society that worries about the rights of criminals, so fuck the criminals. There's billion assholes on this planet already, what's one less scum bag burglar? Less prison overcrowding. Average prisoner costs society 30K a year. Then who's gonna hire them when they get out? Habitual, criminal, scum bag losers. If you catch one of these people in your home, shoot them dead.

If you don't, and they end up turning the situation on you and killing and raping you or your family, that's your own dumb ass fault. These people don't believe life is so sacred, that's why they are robbing you in the first place. Fuck em'.

Those of you who are so hung up on shooting a burglar are weak and the world is going to take advantage of you until you begin to change your mind. I don't even have to change it for you. I just have to wait until someone rob's you and you hand over your wallet and then they stab you in the face just for kicks. You'll change your tune pretty fucking quick.

It would seem that everyone except you disagrees with the strange idea that you should be allowed to murder someone the moment they come near your property.

xDarc:If someone simply turns around, how do you know they will not turn right back around and shoot you in the face?

By passing a gun ban, so you know that insults is the worst they're armed with.

xDarc:There's billion assholes on this planet already, what's one less scum bag rglar? Less prison overcrowding. Average prisoner costs society 30K a year. Then who's gonna hire them when they get out? Habitual, criminal, scum bag losers. If you catch one of these people in your home, shoot them dead.

The last time people who spewed such rhetoric of blind hatred came to power, a world war was needed to stop them.

That's the thing. Who's to say when danger has passed? What if the person goes to their car and comes back with a gun, kills you and rapes 89 year old grandmother?

Let's stop with the paranoid nonesense. When a trespasser runs away the danger is gone. Even strong pro gun/self defence people in here agreed with that. You've put yourself in a very very extreme and fringe side. That alone should be a clue. And you even glorified a person who executed a 60y old burglar outside of property lines. So you have admittedly, according to your own standards, glorified a murderer. And than you dare accuse the other side of the argument to victimize criminals? I'd rather victimize a burglar than a murderer.

And how do you even dare talking about "sacred life" when you obviously show no respect for human lives whatsoever. You may call us weak, but you're downright cruel. We may be taken advantage of, but we will be while trying to create a better world, not some kind of dystopian hell where people are getting hunted down and executed for relatively weak infractions. (yes breaking into someone's property is relatively minor compared to murder or rape)

That's the thing. Who's to say when danger has passed? What if the person goes to their car and comes back with a gun, kills you and rapes 89 year old grandmother?

Let's stop with the paranoid nonesense. When a trespasser runs away the danger is gone.

What if it isn't? What if someone ran away... right into your daughters bed room and put a knife to her throat? I mean what the fuck? When someone breaks into your home, you should not be burdened with the need to make legal distinctions. Until that fuck is out of your house, and hopefully well out into the public street for his sake.

Unless you literally want a law to have a "5 second rule" in it. That's the kinda stuff you come up with. By the time you are done making up your utopia rules, a homeowner has to mail in a form and wait 3-6 weeks before knowing whether or not it will be ok to defend himself within the law. The dystopian society is one where everyone is criminal trash because they can rob and steal with impunity and no one respects anyone's safety, privacy and property anymore- but if you kill a worthless sack of shit; you've crossed a line somehow. Doesn't make sense to me. You either have a respectful society where people who rob and steal are dealt with, or you have one that let's them walk free and breed until you are up your balls in in street urchins.

xDarc:If you don't, and they end up turning the situation on you and killing and raping you or your family, that's your own dumb ass fault. These people don't believe life is so sacred, that's why they are robbing you in the first place. Fuck em'.

I'm sorry, are you talking about burglars, murderers or rapists in your post? It's a bit hard to tell since your blatant and unjustified paranoia seems to have lead you to conflate them all as being the same thing and just as deserving of death.

As for your comment on the law needing a real limit on when you can kill an attacker, there already is. As I said already, you can only kill an attacker when there is an imminent risk of death to the victim. Also known to the sane among us as when the person is actively trying, or is about to try, to end your life. And as we've established, no immediate threat exists when someone who breaks into your home is fleeing. If they run to their car and get a gun (because apparently they decided they're willing to break into your home and kill you, but they're going to leave the gun in the car until shit gets serious. Not to mention they would apparently rather wait around for cops to show up just to kill you rather than simply cut their losses), then you can shoot to kill when they try to re-enter the home. A pretty easy thing to do when they're outside the home and you're in a relatively fortified position and can see where they are with relative safety.

Honestly, your entire argument is some of the most paranoid and nonsensical bullshit I've ever seen. You make no distinction between violent criminals and non-violent, and seem to believe that an unarmed, fleeing attacker still represents some threat when that might represent a tiny fraction of home invasions?

It's actually appalling the sort of mental gymnastics you're doing to try and justify murdering someone. I'll have to agree with Vegosiux's assessment that you and those who agree with you are most likely the typical internet tough guy in love with an adolescent power fantasy, because the alternative (that you're an adult who actually thinks your stance is reasonable and rational) is, frankly, terrifying. More terrifying than the thought of someone breaking into my home, fleeing to their car when I fight back, and coming back with a gun to try and kill me. Because one of those things actually happens to exist, and I'm not in the habit of worrying about either unlikely or completely made up bullshit spouted out of the mouths of people suffering from a bad case of paranoia.

Those of you who are so hung up on shooting a burglar are weak and the world is going to take advantage of you until you begin to change your mind. I don't even have to change it for you. I just have to wait until someone rob's you and you hand over your wallet and then they stab you in the face just for kicks. You'll change your tune pretty fucking quick.

You are absolutely certifiable. Excuse me while I go worry about things that almost never happen because you say they're inevitable and will make me change my tune. You are the very definition of someone with no real grasp on reality.

xDarc:What if it isn't? What if someone ran away... right into your daughters bed room and put a knife to her throat?

You mean like in the story in the OP? Because I totally remember where that guy ran outside, tripped, and was gunned down by the home owner. Wait a second, I don't remember seeing anything about anyone being in actual danger once the guy fled now that I think about it.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you were just making shit up to justify your own psychotic view of the world.

Oh, and that dystopian society you're talking about? Yeah, we totally live in one of those. That's not just something in your own twisted mind at all.

That's the thing. Who's to say when danger has passed? What if the person goes to their car and comes back with a gun, kills you and rapes 89 year old grandmother?

Let's stop with the paranoid nonesense. When a trespasser runs away the danger is gone.

What if it isn't? What if someone ran away... right into your daughters bed room and put a knife to her throat? I mean what the fuck? When someone breaks into your home, you should not be burdened with the need to make legal distinctions. Until that fuck is out of your house, and hopefully well out into the public street for his sake.

You're trying too hard. Running away =/= going to an other room in the house. It's getting to the exit and getting the fuck out. And in the case of the OP the guy was already outside when executed. And you yourself glorified an other person who executed a burglar far from his own home. How do cases like this turn to examples like "he's running to your daughters bedroom". And any person can make the distinction between a person running to a room with other inhabitants and running for the exit.

Also you seem to be talking about defending oneself somehow? That's not what you were discussing. You were discussing perpetrating premeditated murder (because you've already made up your mind now) upon anyone who you perceive as too near your property or as a possible threat.

Also you seem to be talking about defending oneself somehow? That's not what you were discussing. You were discussing perpetrating premeditated murder (because you've already made up your mind now) upon anyone who you perceive as too near your property or as a possible threat.

Surely we can all agree a couple of relatives dying is well worth the right to rid the world of scum that is after our precious TV sets. (yes, this is obvious sarcasm)

xDarc:It's called Castle Doctrine. And it's the law of the land in most of the America. Nice to see our neighbor to the north is also starting to pick up on this.

I was referring to your arguments used to justify your countries insane self defense laws, not the self defense laws themselves, though I'm not surprised you got a little confused there. Reality doesn't seem to be your thing. It's okay.

Big cities in America have lots of violence.

You know your rates of violent crime have been dropping for decades right? And I'm more than willing to bet that your self defense laws had almost nothing to do with this, but am open to seeing evidence which indicates otherwise. I won't hold my breath on you producing credible evidence.

Pick your poison.

I don't really have to since you haven't given actual statistics to compare. I have little doubt that violent crime rates in American cities are higher than large cities elsewhere in the world. I've seen the numbers on that plenty of times. Care to show some evidence that large European cities have a bigger problem with crime as a whole than American cities though? Because I find that a bit hard to believe. Or are you simply assuming that since they have fewer guns and less tolerance for murdering fleeing criminals that they must have more crime?

Seriously, use something other than your paranoid fantasies and conjecture to argue your points or stop wasting everyone's time. Because so far, I haven't seen you contribute anything of value to this discussion unless everyone else involved was interested in finding a new crazy guy they should ignore.

Seriously, use something other than your paranoid fantasies and conjecture to argue your points or stop wasting everyone's time. Because so far, I haven't seen you contribute anything of value to this discussion unless everyone else involved was interested in finding a new crazy guy they should ignore.

Honestly, your entire argument is some of the most paranoid and nonsensical bullshit I've ever seen.

It's called Castle Doctrine. And it's the law of the land in most of the America.

No, it's not. Not all states follow Castle Doctrine, so don't speak as if it's the law of America. And even if it were, even Stand Your Ground, which is even more forgiving to self-defense than its legal derivative of Castle Doctrine, acknowledges that once the criminal is fleeing, shooting at them is no longer justified.

AgedGrunt:With respect I don't think it's pragmatic attitude to suggest that those on the defense of this greatly intense, extreme scenario are likened to arguments for wild west-style rules of anything goes, get-yer-guns boys lawlessness.

I'm sorry, but at the point when you're defending the actions of a man who deliberately turned his illegal weapon on an injured and helpless man using the pathetic logic of "oh, but he was a criminal", then I lose sympathy for their position, it's hypocritical bullshit.

If someone has yet to grow out of the infantile division of the world of Cowboys and Indians,[1] then the "wild west" association is entirely appropriate for them.

xDarc:It's called Castle Doctrine. And it's the law of the land in most of the America. Nice to see our neighbor to the north is also starting to pick up on this.

No, they aren't.

As already pointed out, the article in the original post is misrepresenting the issue by using sources which imply that this decision is a debate about self defense law. He's being retried as a result of improper legal procedure, not because he's not guilty. He almost certainly is, and even if he's not guilty of murder he is guilty of a lesser offence like manslaughter.

Also, the Castle Doctrine is actually based on an English common law principle which is already reflected in Canadian law too, that you should be entitled to certain protections from prosecution when defending yourself in your own home. It does not mean that you can do whatever you want to someone simply because they broke into your house.

..which apparently, none of us have ever experienced given that we're so sheltered.

I don't think you even understand what Europe is. It's not a culturally homogeneous bloc, different states within Europe have very different legal systems, very different social problems and also different police procedures and measures of gathering statistics.

If you're determined to labour on under the delusion that the entire European continent is some post-apocalyptic Dystopian nightmare where criminals roam the wastelands on motorcycles raping and pillaging, or that it is inevitably heading that way, then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's simply not true.

evilthecat:...and also different police procedures and measures of gathering statistics.

Mmm hmm. Because you probably already know what the statistics have to say about overall crime rates in urban Europe, the UK particularly, when compared to the US. The numbers only matter when you agree with them, I know. I don't even bother anymore.

I just know that Europe will be worse off than America ever will be. Here, nobody is crying over a dead burglar- except maybe someone from the Netherlands who will point at all the dead, not knowing or caring how many are crime/gang related killings, to denounce how violent all of America must therefore be... and then because they are insecure about the size of their number, they cheat and count the gun suicides too.

But hey, European stats don't count because of police procedures and measures of gathering statistics. Guess they measure crimes w/ Metric system and the numbers are in centicrimes?

evilthecat:...and also different police procedures and measures of gathering statistics.

Mmm hmm. Because you probably already know what the statistics have to say about overall crime rates in urban Europe, the UK particularly, when compared to the US. The numbers only matter when you agree with them, I know. I don't even bother anymore.

Because you're a hypocrite who does the exact same thing with statistics? Because I mean fuck, he posted three paragraphs and you cherrypicked one sentance to respond to.

I just know that Europe will be worse off than America ever will be.

In America the police have a Supreme Court ruling estalishing they have no obligation to protect society, just to catch criminals. In Europe, the police have an obligation to do both.

Worse off nation: America.

Here, nobody is crying over a dead burglar- except maybe someone from the Netherlands who will point at all the dead, not knowing or caring how many are crime/gang related killings, to denounce how violent all of America must therefore be... and then because they are insecure about the size of their number, they cheat and count the gun suicides too.

Also there, you glorify a man who chased an unarmed burglar for blocks, then shot him despite not being threatened in any way and present that as being a civilised solution to the problem.

You also can't get the details of the case right since you site Castle Doctrine as being proof that America is smarter when the Cstle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground both state that they no longer apply once the criminal leaves the property, and you bring the "off your property" rationale in when the closest man to the house when he was shot and killed was 42 feet away, or roughly 126 feet from his house. So you can't even maintain internal consistency within your own posts, havng to resort to ludicirous strawman and emotional arguments to cover the fact that you have nothing.

But hey, European stats don't count because of police procedures and measures of gathering statistics. Guess they measure crimes w/ Metric system and the numbers are in centicrimes?

Nice try being smug, but from someone who has to resort to ludicirious strawman's to prove your point, people are laughing at you, not with you.

Seriously, use something other than your paranoid fantasies and conjecture to argue your points or stop wasting everyone's time. Because so far, I haven't seen you contribute anything of value to this discussion unless everyone else involved was interested in finding a new crazy guy they should ignore.

I disagree with you. That's really all I need to do.

Actually, when you make claims of fact (such as having a choice between a lot of violence or a lot of crime), or that not being able to simply kill anyone who walks onto your property makes people less safe, you kind of have to back those claims up with some sort of evidence. Otherwise you're talking out of your ass and your argument carries no weight.

But thank you for confirming for everyone that you're views aren't based on anything tangible and that it's a waste of time to even try and engage in a reasonable debate with you because you have nothing of value to say. Disagree all you want, but if you can't back it up with evidence your opinion is worthless.

xDarc:Mmm hmm. Because you probably already know what the statistics have to say about overall crime rates in urban Europe, the UK particularly, when compared to the US. The numbers only matter when you agree with them, I know.

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. You bring up crime rates to make your point, but offer no sources so we can see the numbers and check the methodology ourselves. Until you actually show your sources, your argument has no weight.

Shaoken:[quote="xDarc" post="528.399928.16439391"] and you bring the "off your property" rationale in when the closest man to the house when he was shot and killed was 42 feet away, or roughly 126 feet from his house.

A human can cover 42 feet in about 3 seconds, 126 in about 9-10. Once the shooting started, the whole thing was likely over in seconds, and you expect people who have just been attacked to make good judgement calls on when to stop shooting in seconds. That is why the property line is the logical "line" for the criminal to cross to indicate he is indeed fleeing.

And I didn't bring up the highland park shooting to tell you just how I feel, the guy was tried for murder by a jury of his peers, and they would not convict him of murder. After almost 2 years, they finally got him on two charges: Manslaughter, for which he received probation, and using a firearm in commission of a felony, for which he received 2 years prison time. With any time served while awaiting trial, his sentence was shortened.

Point is, even after chasing someone down well away from your property, most people recognized the homeowner was not in his right state of mind and they weren't buying the murder charge. So I'm not out here on some lunatic fringe, if the guy had capped the burglar in his home it wouldn't have even been news. Just another day in Detroit metro.

A human can cover 42 feet in about 3 seconds, 126 in about 9-10. Once the shooting started, the whole thing was likely over in seconds, and you expect people who have just been attacked to make good judgement calls on when to stop shooting in seconds. That is why the property line is the logical "line" for the criminal to cross to indicate he is indeed fleeing.

The shooting was probably not over in seconds since he took the time to execute a wounded trespasser on the ground. And this alone proves his "judgement" wasn't just bad but totally fucked up. On top of that let's not forget that the shooting started inside his house and this made the burglars flee. Again, if you start killing people outside your house than it's not simply a matter of making a bad judgment call due to adrenaline or stress or whatever, it's just a great example of someone who wanted to prove he could make Judge Dredd look like a hippie.

xDarc:Mmm hmm. Because you probably already know what the statistics have to say about overall crime rates in urban Europe, the UK particularly, when compared to the US. The numbers only matter when you agree with them, I know.

Both countries have levels of urbanization around 80%, so in order to accommodate that difference and still have equal rates of urban crime, rural crime in the US would have to be 400% more common. It isn't. "The urban US" is not "New York", I would expect someone living in Detroit to understand that.

You might be getting confused by certain bits of right wing blather about the supposed violent crime rate, by which you could make the argument that the UK is hugely more violent. Some unscrupulous or stupid people have.. except it isn't.

Almost all of the violent crime in the UK is from one crime, "common assault", which is a collective term for the separate crimes of "assault" and "battery". This means that any form of physical contact with an unwilling person, regardless of the level of force or injury caused, is considered a violent crime in UK statistics.

In US federal statistics, "violent crime" does not include battery and in some cases does not even include assault, only aggravated assault.

The same is also true of sexual assault. In the UK, any form of sexual assault is considered a violent crime. In the US, only forcible rape is considered a violent crime.

It helps to know the statistics. It helps far more to know what the statistics actually mean.

xDarc:A human can cover 42 feet in about 3 seconds, 126 in about 9-10.

If they're an olympic runner, with their hands free, on an open track, yes.[/quote]Lurking in a house for who knows how long, getting a weapon, loading it, moving into a room, shooting at people and then pursueing the ones you didn't manage to murder with the first shot through your house, out of the house and murdering them then however, is obviously clear premeditation.

xDarc:And I didn't bring up the highland park shooting to tell you just how I feel, the guy was tried for murder by a jury of his peers, and they would not convict him of murder.

So was OJ Simpson... Jury trials are not about guilt or justice, but about whom can confuse a bunch of random laymen the most. Especially not if they're handicapped by laws that legalise murder or assault using firearms.

Anyway, you're a bit confusing. You're talking about a string of shootings related to street gangs. You aren't seriously going to try and defend armed gang wars, are you?

xDarc:Point is, even after chasing someone down well away from your property, most people recognized the homeowner was not in his right state of mind and they weren't buying the murder charge. So I'm not out here on some lunatic fringe, if the guy had capped the burglar in his home it wouldn't have even been news.

It still would've been murder. It just would've been denied by a few dangerous people who believe murder is a good thing.

The Gentleman: And I would be careful about the "erring on the side of the victims" in this situation, especially since the victims in this situation are the dead ones, not the one with the rifle and illegal magazine.

That is precisely where I see the problem: generally this is being looked at as two separate incidents. The first was a violent break-in and attack on a man who defended himself and his home. The second is seen as a new criminal case against a man who ran after innocent people and killed.

I don't think it's right to have two cases here, and the court certainly shouldn't ignore what first happened as it is the very reason the deaths occurred. As if exiting the home, the man becomes the violent criminal and the retreating group the victims, is just all kinds of bad precedent to start. This is how we'd end up with a burglar suing a family for getting bit by their rabid dog.

Shaoken:In America the police have a Supreme Court ruling estalishing they have no obligation to protect society, just to catch criminals. In Europe, the police have an obligation to do both.

The U.S. Constitution outlined due process, which is necessary to prevent depriving citizens of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There was nothing in it for the Supreme Court to look at and say: why yes, the state is also required to protect all of these things, too. For the moment, let's tuck aside the issue of whether or not a society should place a legal burden on LE to do so and ask:

If there is no legal obligation, did this man, who was attacked by five armed people, have a reliable option with LE? If he let them go and called the police, and they have no obligation to go after these people, then what?

As long as we are throwing the U.S. under the bus for having a negligent and unsympathetic police force, seems like the people are screwed no matter what happens and, fitting this cynical mindset, it is closer to every man for himself than critics are allowing. Can a place simultaneously have a negligent and uncaring police force and a society that should trust it to "just catch criminals"? Just food for thought.

AgedGrunt:That is precisely where I see the problem: generally this is being looked at as two separate incidents. The first was a violent break-in and attack on a man who defended himself and his home. The second is seen as a new criminal case against a man who ran after innocent people and killed.

I don't think it's right to have two cases here, and the court certainly shouldn't ignore what first happened as it is the very reason the deaths occurred. As if exiting the home, the man becomes the violent criminal and the retreating group the victims, is just all kinds of bad precedent to start. This is how we'd end up with a burglar suing a family for getting bit by their rabid dog.

Why is it a good thing if one can excuse crimes purposely committed? Even your example is wrong, because if people purposely kept a rabbid dog, they were still doing wrong no matter the circumstances.

Your line of reasoning is like saying when someone sneaks into a home with the intent of raping the occupant, he does in fact rape the occupant, but he finds a small package of drugs and reports that to the police, then he's no longer a rapist. That's not how it works.

Just like that, any act that falls outside immediate self-defense, is a different act. Doing something to someone charging you with a weapon, and any action taken after that are separate actions. For instance if someone pulls a gun on me, I'm in my right to inflict harm on them while disarming them or getting rid of the danger. But if I disarm them, and then beat them to an inch of their life because I hate cowards who get agressive and then pull weapons because they don't have the balls, that's a separate act, done when there no longer was any danger to me and I wasn't defending myself or safeguarding others.

Plus you mustn't forget, in this case, the killer had assaulted one of his victims in the past, and had been threatening them prior to the murders.

It isn't like everybody was sitting in a happy circle singing kumbaya when they suddenly decided it would be fun to go to the killer's house and maybe rough him up a little. There's a history to this case, and the history looks fairly damning towards the killer.

Blablahb:Why is it a good thing if one can excuse crimes purposely committed? Even your example is wrong, because if people purposely kept a rabbid dog, they were still doing wrong no matter the circumstances.

Your line of reasoning is like saying when someone sneaks into a home with the intent of raping the occupant, he does in fact rape the occupant, but he finds a small package of drugs and reports that to the police, then he's no longer a rapist. That's not how it works.

Just like that, any act that falls outside immediate self-defense, is a different act. Doing something to someone charging you with a weapon, and any action taken after that are separate actions. For instance if someone pulls a gun on me, I'm in my right to inflict harm on them while disarming them or getting rid of the danger. But if I disarm them, and then beat them to an inch of their life because I hate cowards who get agressive and then pull weapons because they don't have the balls, that's a separate act, done when there no longer was any danger to me and I wasn't defending myself or safeguarding others.

Plus you mustn't forget, in this case, the killer had assaulted one of his victims in the past, and had been threatening them prior to the murders.

It isn't like everybody was sitting in a happy circle singing kumbaya when they suddenly decided it would be fun to go to the killer's house and maybe rough him up a little. There's a history to this case, and the history looks fairly damning towards the killer.

I wasn't excusing, I responded to labeling the perpetrators victims, because it appeared to leave out that they started this. I contended that these were not separate actions (the defending of life/property and then the subsequent pursuit). They must be considered as one sequence of events and all must be considered. It's not quite so simple to draw a legal line between self-defense and murder, there is some gray area and this is indeed a difficult patch of it.

The prior history you mention is not part of the sequence, and while it could otherwise suggest motive, doesn't necessarily make it so here. He was provoked. I've conceded his ultimate actions were wrong but in all honesty I don't believe any of us are qualified experts, much less have complete testimony and intimate knowledge of those involved in order to make a judgment call. I'm certainly not going to pretend that this freedom-to-retreat law is anything less than flawed.

AgedGrunt:I wasn't excusing, I responded to labeling the perpetrators victims, because it appeared to leave out that they started this. I contended that these were not separate actions (the defending of life/property and then the subsequent pursuit). They must be considered as one sequence of events and all must be considered. It's not quite so simple to draw a legal line between self-defense and murder, there is some gray area and this is indeed a difficult patch of it.

There's just a plain need to name separate acts because of legislation. You can only legislate about separate actions, not about every possible scenario.

Obviously courts are supposed to weigh circumstances, but each act, legally speaking, needs to be considered separately. It also helps to visit aspects of a case, and reconstruct the events. The legal system requires that for many reason. Not in the last place because the people who need to know most (judge, maybe jury, prosecutor, lawyer) weren't there and don't know about the case. So they need a really carefull account of events that's split action-by-action carefully.

Suppose we take something that happened to me as an example (and make a bit of a wall of text while at it, skip to last paragraph otherwise). The police officer walked me through the same thing because I complained why filing the report was taking so long and used ridiculous language, so I can repeat the gest of that. It was roadrage resulting in assault and destruction of property.

If the police report said "He cut him off, causing a minor traffic collision. Then he kicked his door. Broke the window, got drawn in and knocked out" you'd have had a judge wondering what on earth now landed on his desk and what happened that day.It goes into extreme detail. You don't write "He kicked the door", but "I saw him raise his leg, and place it against the door with a kicking motion. During this I felt afraid". It seems silly, but that's the level of detail they need.

But because the entire sequence of events gets disected (filing the report took more than 3 bloody hours) they could get a good view of events even if they weren't there. Let me sketch a few details and what impact that have on the (possible) consideration for the judge:

For instance what caused the guy to cause an accident. He was pushing on the motorway while I did 125 kph (where 120 is allowed) so when he started making angry gestures I gave him the finger and stuck left a bit longer than strictly necessary, before taking the exit, he took the same (mitigating for him because I wasn't being strictly passive).There he already tried to run me off the road as the lanes doubled after the exit (start of the incident), and at the stop lights I took a different lane from him so he wouldn't be next to me so it would pass (de-escalation attempt, agrevating for him because if he'd done nothing, it would've stopped there).Then he waited in his lane untill I was alongsides (him seeking the confrontation) and threatened me while hanging over his girlfriend, which I ignored it by looking ahead (more de-escalation attempts).Then he cut me off suddenly and hit the brakes, we collided (causing an accident purposely).He got out, I locked the doors, struggled to get my phone. He started pounding the window. Because I supported the window with my arm it held for a good ten minutes as I telephoned the police. (very damning for him because he had plenty of time to walk away)At some point the window broke and I was now in trouble, because I was sitting and couldn't get out and he started punching me through the window. He got several punches through and left some bruising on my left cheekbone. (assault, proof of injuries, etc)At some point I was trying to grab his arms as he hit me so I could prevent him from hitting me. That too took minutes. One of those hit the tip of my jaw and it was a pretty good confusing punch, not a stunner, but definately something that rocks you. (damning for him because the assault took long, I got hurt, validating what came later)Finally I managed to grab a sleeve and hold him half in the car, he bent over through the window and he started to struggle and punch me with his free arm, with much less effect.At that point I figured out how I could nullify his movement space and I began to pull him inside, sort of putting him across my lap. Then I figured in a flash how I could stop it in the confined space of the car and began elbowing the base of his skull with my right elbow some 15-18 times, after which he was well and truly knocked out. (could've been to his defense because it were so many techniques, also important detail because I stopped when I realised he was gone)I was noted to be laughing during the filing as something I'd seen in a karate movie and I tried in panic actually work (because I'm not about to tell them I know exactly what that technique is from Krav Maga classes and what it does, and risk being deemed as using excessive self-defense, so how it got written down it was an ad hoc solution that happened to work well)Then when I was figuring out how to put him back, don't know how long, a policeman impacted on the guy like he was doing a meteorite immitation, and pulled him out, realising only then he was gone. Police had responded to the call. (from that point on they also have police witnesses of course)It described he took a minute to regain full conciousness, stood unsteadily afterwards. (mitigating, because he already suffered for it)And described how he claims to have suffered headaches for almost two weeks (damn straight, because striking the base of the skull causes a minor concussion as the skull jerks back and tilts, smacking the brain back and forth, and causes nerve damage, and it mitigates it for him again because he already suffered for it)It even said about how our dog which I had in the back was scared by the events and still doesn't feel comfortable in a car, would you believe.

Anyway, this sort of a slab of text, but then at least twenty times as large, formed the account of the case as it went to court months and months later. Not just that, but there was photos of the cars (the collision hadn't caused any damage outside of a tiny dent in my license plate), photos of the bruising on my cheekbone, a medical report from his GP, a separate accident report about the 'crash' itself, statement of his girlfriend, receipts from the garage that fixed mom's car, etc etc. It's all really extensive.

In the end he had to pay the € 1623 worth of damages and got 16 hours community service. Which is a joke of a sentence, but at least my mother's car got a free paintjob on his expense, and I know for a fact he'll have hated his life as he recovered for the first few days. Get a decent concussion and even trying to read causes you intense pain, plus nerves themselves that get battered like that act up and cause a very annoying kind of pain too.

Anyway, returning to the topic, it is that reconstruction of events, and needing to judge separate acts under the law, which makes it important to pull a case apart and consider each fact, each act, separately. That doesn't mean they get separated from all prior events, but it keeps it manageable. Trials are very complicated things most of the time. I sure wouldn't want to be a judge if you see the hundreds of pages of paperwork they need to get through.

Here for instance the point where the victims turned away and began to flee is of crucial importance, because a decent definition of self-defense, already disables a self-defense claim after that point. Then they'll probably want described in minute detail how they exited the house and how long it took, because five seconds or a full minute makes a huge amount of impact on how damning it looks towards the killer.

That's also why executing the victims that fell down is a separate act, because it's not part of the altercation in the house, and they need to consider each detail which lead to that act carefully, in order to determine his guilt.

Xan Krieger:"An eyewitness said Mr. Bishop spotted a wounded invader falling in the snow and struggling to get up. Mr. Bishop raised his gun and fired at him, killing him."That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Depends on where you live. Also, was the attacker still a threat?

In Kansas, You forfeit your life if you do what the attackers did. It would have been ruled Self-Defense, and the surviving attackers charged with murder. After the legal hoopla, you petition the police to give you back your weapon. I keep a spare so that, if I am attacked, I still have a self-defense rifle too fill in for a couple of years while the legal junk goes on.

Slightly Off-topic: A 25-round magazine is illegal in Canada? Really, this situation is the perfect example of why larger magazines are needed for self-defense. A 7-round magazine would run out in 2 seconds giving the attackers a chance to rally and over-take your defenses.

Back OT: This is another reason I am never moving out of a conservative state in the US.

Also, I now know what the gun blogs will be going on about for a while.

But it's not the end of the story, the story's purpose is to create gray areas in legal self defense. For every nanavut there are numerous other, less sensational, self defense stories where attackers are shot and killed and people do not spend hours on message boards analyzing every second of the event- because the media does not sensationalize them all, it can't.

But if it cherry picks the stories, it get's to further it's own agenda- which again- is to make people cry out for some sort of legislation that further cripples the 2nd amendment and self-defense laws, until people are too scared to buy weapons or fight back in their own home for fear of legal action, and the criminals run wild. It's the ultimate end to a misguided leftist utopian fantasy.

Just don't buy into it, that is the bigger picture, that is what this story, and stories like Trayvon Martin, are really about.

Fair points all considered, however it keeps coming back to heat of the moment and excessively violent climate that could potentially provoke an unnecessarily violent reaction. A very extreme scenario that shouldn't pave the way for everyone to start gunning down their attackers. I'll just leave it at that.